Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

Posted on: February 11, 2007 - 7:21pm

mythrys

Posts: 35

Joined: 2007-02-11

Offline

If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

I don't see why you ought to. What is pain but the firing of synapses? If no meaning exists, why delude yourself in assigning a meaning to pain? You are being inconsistent, is the problem.

It's not delusional to assign meaning to things that can be observed and measured (like pain) as a matter of fact that's the opposite of being delusional.

I don't think there is such a thing as 'absolute moral truth' but there are reasons to think that some things ought not be done. One of those reasons is that people desire happiness and dislike unhappiness which is rational and drawn from observation.

Quote:

So, we can not hurt others, except when it is our own lives, in which case we can hurt others? Wonderful. It's all clear to me now. Further, morality is beyond just what affects me. Morality has to do with how a human being ought to act, not just to avoid hurting others. What is a good person? What is a complete human being? This is what morality tells us. Justice and injustice is merely the relation we have to other people.

I didn't say that you could hurt others when it's your own life. I said you have to weigh your happiness against theirs and ultimately it affects you more than it affects them. So in the end you should do what makes you happy and causes the least amount of pain to other people.

The reason you ought not do certain things is because of the effect it has on others. You can't do anything immoral to yourself.

Quote:

An animal cannot know anything, any more than a human being can give consent. A human being's notion of "consent" isn't meaningful at all, nor is its notion of pain, in your view. Why give value to pain if value cannot exist? It is just arbitrary. Be consistent.

So why do I have an obligation to inform them? According to you, it's your life and that's that. No obligation ought to exist. If so, from where? Why, likewise, do you have an obligation not to stop them? Where does such an obligation come from? Happiness is nonsense, just as pain is, to a materialist. It is just the firing of neurons in a different spot of the brain. Who cares about that? Why care?

You would have an obligation to inform them if you accepted the greatest happiness principal because by not informing them you could be causing unhappiness.This is the same reason why you would have an obligation not to stop them after you informed them.

Just because you value individual liberty that doesn't mean obligation disappears.

It is just the firing of neurons but that doesn't mean that you don't feel it or that you shouldn't place any value on it. You should care because that's what we got.

Quote:

I would argue that we do have a moral obligation to stop them because it is contrary to their good, regardless of their personal perception of how it might help them. It is contrary to their happiness.

How do you know what's contrary to their happiness. Don't you think they are in a better position to know how they feel than you are? If the person is lucid then you would just be imposing your will on them and making them unhappy.

Quote:

Why assign meaning to homosexuality and not beastiality? There are two things involved in a beastial union. Homosexuality is contrary to nature in a different way than beastiality, but it is contrary nevertheless. From an obvious standpoint, the parts weren't meant to be used in that way.

There are two things involved in bestiality and one of them is being abused. In homosexuality nobody is being abused.

When you say that homosexuality is contrary to nature I assume that you don't mean it breaks the scientific laws of nature. The laws of nature are descriptive so they can't be broken.

So you must mean that it's unnatural in the sense of being artificial. And in that case I don't understand why you would object. Artificial things are usually better than natural things. Houses, cars clothing, medicine, computers and almost everything you enjoy on a daily basis is counter to nature. It's all a result of human artifice.

If you object so much maybe you should throw your clothes away and go live in a cave.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

You say that something "must" have created everything and this thing "must" be your god. I suppose you say that because it means you can avoid actually providing a reason why it "must" be the case. Is this the extent of your position, repeating the same thing over and over again?

Why is the necessary being argument flawed? I offered a clear account demonstrating that some necessary being exists. Why is this flawed? I am not repeating my point, I am asking for an answer.

Quote:

The very fact that you posit that some complex, intelligent being that's interested in human penises must exist in order to create everything is just plain absurd since the existence of that being would disprove your point. You can argue your point by stating a contradiction. I'm sure this has already been pointed out to you but some cognitive dissonance blockage is preventing you from understanding a simple logical construct.

And WHY is it a contradiction to say that a necessary being must exist? It must imply that there is some problem with the idea itself. What is it?

Quote:

It's not delusional to assign meaning to things that can be observed and measured (like pain) as a matter of fact that's the opposite of being delusional.

OK, so I will assign morality to real things and say that homosexuality is wrong because it exists contrary to nature.

Quote:

I don't think there is such a thing as 'absolute moral truth' but there are reasons to think that some things ought not be done. One of those reasons is that people desire happiness and dislike unhappiness which is rational and drawn from observation.

I would agree this is the basis of happiness, which is a desire for the good. But let's examine this deeper. What do human beings desire when they desire the good? They desire infinite happiness. They desire goodness itself forever. It is an unlimited desire. It then seems clear to me that no limited pleasure or finite object such as material gain or power or sex can satisfy this desire, as it is infinite in object. As such, its only object that will fulfill it is goodness itself, or infinite good. What is the good of any being? It is its perfection and fulfillment of its goal. How is the human mind perfected? By learning causes. How is the human mind fulfilled? By knowing the perfect first cause of all things. This knowledge of the cause of all things would perfectly satisfy the mind and the will and would constitute perfect happiness. This is heaven: to contemplate God in His essence.

On a different note, if some things can be measured and can be objectively verified and can be made an objective foundation of morality, then it is clear that an absolute morality can exist based on these principles (leaving aside whether "pain" is the deciding factor).

Quote:

I didn't say that you could hurt others when it's your own life. I said you have to weigh your happiness against theirs and ultimately it affects you more than it affects them. So in the end you should do what makes you happy and causes the least amount of pain to other people.

The reason you ought not do certain things is because of the effect it has on others. You can't do anything immoral to yourself.

What is happiness? If it is just physical pleasure, I would argue that it is not really happiness. Likewise, we don't hurt others because such is an infraction against justice.
I would argue that we can do something immoral just privately. To act in such a way as to impair the perfection of my own being is by nature evil, as evil is a lack of perfection. If it is natural for my being to preserve itself, then suicide clearly acts contrary to nature and is evil. It is thus an evil act to commit suicide as it is gravely contrary to my nature as a human being.

But then you can't claim to assign a moral reason to it, if you want to claim there is no meaning elsewhere. It just happens such that people recoil from pain. There is no reason for it.

Quote:

You would have an obligation to inform them if you accepted the greatest happiness principal because by not informing them you could be causing unhappiness.This is the same reason why you would have an obligation not to stop them after you informed them.

What is happiness? What is unhappiness? I find your definitions unclear. Likewise, if we are speaking from an atheistic standpoint of relativism, there is no standard of happiness at all. What is it? Bodily pleasure? I can cause that with pills and drugs. I can kill as many people as long as they are drugged up, apparently.

Quote:

Just because you value individual liberty that doesn't mean obligation disappears.

Why not? You claimed it did in the context of suicide. The obligation to stop them for their own happiness' sake is abrogated, but we still have an obligation to inform them for their own happiness' sake. Where is the logic in that?

Quote:

It is just the firing of neurons but that doesn't mean that you don't feel it or that you shouldn't place any value on it. You should care because that's what we got.

The value has no value. Precisely my point. If you want to go whole hog with this, you ought to be consistent. If nothing has value, neither do your valuations there. Why ought the firing of neurons and natural recoiling before a hot stove to create a moral imperative to prevent me from pushing someone against the stove? If no meaning or ground of it exists, none can be gained.

Quote:

How do you know what's contrary to their happiness. Don't you think they are in a better position to know how they feel than you are? If the person is lucid then you would just be imposing your will on them and making them unhappy.

First, isn't personal autonomy paramount and unable to be violated? If so, why can't I impose my will on them? If you tell me I can't, you are imposing on my decision to choose and are being immoral, according to your own logic.
Second, I do because I know the goal of human life is to preserve itself. It is utterly contrary to their nature to kill themselves.

Quote:

There are two things involved in bestiality and one of them is being abused. In homosexuality nobody is being abused.

I would argue that both parties are abused in both cases, but I suppose that is just me. Sigh.

Nevertheless, if consent is a meaningless term because human beings are just brains firing away, why assign any value to the term? Why assign value to the term "abuse" when such a term is in itself meaningless?

Quote:

When you say that homosexuality is contrary to nature I assume that you don't mean it breaks the scientific laws of nature. [....]

I mean it is contrary to the purpose of sexual activity. Sex between two males or two females is obviously contrary to its purpose, which is to reproduce and to unify the parties in this reproduction creating a family. Where would you then get the idea that this is perfectly in line with nature's purpose for sex?

Nevertheless, if consent is a meaningless term because human beings are just brains firing away, why assign any value to the term? Why assign value to the term "abuse" when such a term is in itself meaningless?

Meaningless with respect to what?

Just because everything could be reduced to interactions of cells & molecules, doesn't mean everything is meaningless. There are emergent properties that come out of these brains firing away. You're not convincing anyone trying to force naturalism into nihilism.

Not only that, but even if the argument worked, which it doesn't, it wouldn't prove the Catholic God.

No, it wouldn't necessarily draw any inference between the Catholic God and the Necessary Being, because you would need Revelation to know about the Catholic God in the first place. But you would know about a singular, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving Being who orders all things and most deserves the name God. Likewise, the Catholics define their God as being the Prime Cause. You wouldn't need to accept their revelation, as they claim their God to be identical with this being.

No we would not know an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being. We would know only that there was something always present. That's it. It could be weak, stupid and hateful. You can infer nothing else of its attributes except that it was present, whatever it is/was. To infer anything beyond that is not an inference at all, but a tremendous leap of faith. And I know you have faith, but it doesn't cut it with us, and it certainly doesn't square with your promise of "clear and demonstrable evidence."

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

It would only prove that something was always here. That something could be anything. Matter, energy, pasta monster, what have you.

No, it can't be matter or energy. It is a necessary cause of its own existence, eternally actual and without potential. Its essence, "what it is," is precisely "to exist." It is not matter nor energy. It is entirely immaterial and without composition. If it had matter, it would be in potency toward something else. Likewise, if it had matter, it could not sustain material things in existence.

Please provide your evidence that it is not possible for matter with energy to be the first cause. You say "if it had matter, it could not sustain material things." Textbook example of begging the question. Obviously if the self-sustaining thing were matter, then you could not make the claim that matter cannot sustain itself! However, you don't know that and you haven't demonstrated that it can't be matter except to simply assert that it can't be matter. Way to reason.

I could just as well make the naked assertion that the metaphysical sustainer and causer of the universe could not be God because he could not sustain himself without a meta-metaphysical sustainer meta-God. How do I know this to be the case? No more than you know it to be the case that matter cannot sustain itself without a God.

So provide your evidence that the first cause cannot be material please without simply asserting it.

OK, so I will assign morality to real things and say that homosexuality is wrong because it exists contrary to nature.

You could do that but you would be totally inconsistent because lots of things exist contrary to nature and I’m sure you probably think most of them are great.

Quote:

What is happiness? If it is just physical pleasure, I would argue that it is not really happiness. Likewise, we don't hurt others because such is an infraction against justice.

There are different qualities of pleasure I don’t think you can reduce it to mere hedonism. In my view it is more about preferences. A person could choose a life with less pleasure or more pain if by doing so they could fulfill other important preferences.

I agree it’s unjust to hurt others but from my perspective the reason it’s unjust is because I afford everyone the same right to be happy that I afford myself.

Quote:

I would argue that we can do something immoral just privately. To act in such a way as to impair the perfection of my own being is by nature evil, as evil is a lack of perfection. If it is natural for my being to preserve itself, then suicide clearly acts contrary to nature and is evil. It is thus an evil act to commit suicide as it is gravely contrary to my nature as a human being.

I don’t believe in evil I believe in better and worse and in my opinion taking away a persons freedom because I might not like what they’ll do with it is worse.

But then you can't claim to assign a moral reason to it, if you want to claim there is no meaning elsewhere. It just happens such that people recoil from pain. There is no reason for it.

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism the moral value of an act is judged by the value of its consequences. It doesn’t matter if you say something is moral or if you say that it brings the best result the end is the same.

Quote:

Just because you value individual liberty that doesn't mean obligation disappears.

Quote:

Why not? You claimed it did in the context of suicide. The obligation to stop them for their own happiness' sake is abrogated, but we still have an obligation to inform them for their own happiness' sake. Where is the logic in that?

Your obligation to stop them only extends so far it doesn’t include taking away their right to make their own decisions. I call that tyranny.

Quote:

The value has no value. Precisely my point. If you want to go whole hog with this, you ought to be consistent. If nothing has value, neither do your valuations there. Why ought the firing of neurons and natural recoiling before a hot stove to create a moral imperative to prevent me from pushing someone against the stove? If no meaning or ground of it exists, none can be gained.

I readily admit I don’t think morality is completely rational. You could push someone onto a hot stove and that wouldn’t necessarily stop other people from doing nice thing for you. Personally I’d rather live in a world where people thought it was wrong to do that because then there’s less of a chance that it will happen to me.

Quote:

First, isn't personal autonomy paramount and unable to be violated? If so, why can't I impose my will on them? If you tell me I can't, you are imposing on my decision to choose and are being immoral, according to your own logic. Second, I do because I know the goal of human life is to preserve itself. It is utterly contrary to their nature to kill themselves.

It is a slight imposition on you to say that you can’t impose your will on others but it would be a far greater imposition on them if you could do that. Your freedom has to coexist with theirs.

Maybe the goal of their life is to avoid some suffering by dying sooner rather than later. Who are you to decide what’s best for them? Why can’t they make their own decisions?

Quote:

I would argue that both parties are abused in both cases, but I suppose that is just me. Sigh.

Nevertheless, if consent is a meaningless term because human beings are just brains firing away, why assign any value to the term? Why assign value to the term "abuse" when such a term is in itself meaningless?

I’m not an expert on this subject but I think that people usually tend to not enjoy abuse. So until one of the people stops enjoying it I’ll just assume that nobody is being abused.

Quote:

I mean it is contrary to the purpose of sexual activity. Sex between two males or two females is obviously contrary to its purpose, which is to reproduce and to unify the parties in this reproduction creating a family. Where would you then get the idea that this is perfectly in line with nature's purpose for sex?

Eyes are for seeing but women can use their eyes to flirt. Does that mean that flirting is contrary to nature because they’re using their eyes for something other than seeing? That is a little absurd don’t you think?

You are confusing is with ought. Just because sex is used for procreation that doesn’t mean that it can only be used for that. It’s also good for recreation. And if some people can have it for fun then everybody can. It’s called holding everyone to the same standard.

By your standard nobody should have more sexual encounters than children. Everyone would be sexually repressed and have more kids than they could afford.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Why is the necessary being argument flawed? I offered a clear account demonstrating that some necessary being exists. Why is this flawed? I am not repeating my point, I am asking for an answer.

You don't offer anything, you just make an assertion, demand that it must be true, but don't offer anything to actually support your assertion. If a god must have done all of this then just present a god. A scientist can present nucleotides and experiments where organic matter can come from non-organic matter, but you haven't presented anything but a naked assertion backed up by repeated assertions that it must be true because you simply made the claim.

Quote:

And WHY is it a contradiction to say that a necessary being must exist? It must imply that there is some problem with the idea itself. What is it?

It's self-contradictory, I already mentioned that. A being cannot create itself and there is certainly no record of any intelligent being spontanously generating out of nothing. So unless you actually can present something to the contrary you have no point.

I'm assuming you're just another creationist who will never present anything to support your claims. I shouldn't expect this as anything new sicne creationists have never presented any scientific support of their claims.

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

This is the most idiotic question I have ever seen.

If you really want me to answer this from an evolutionary standpoint, here goes.

Bestiality goes against natural laws. Speciation in evolution occurs when the gametes have differed so much from the prototype to the new organism a couple thousand generations down the line that the gametes no longer fuse. For animal sexual reproduction to continue the species, an organism has to be attracted to their mate who is of the same species but opposite sex. Organisms which are of different species are conditioned to be physically unattractive to one another. This is why you do not see a dog attempting to copulate with a cat. Therefore, we are naturally conditioned to be unattracted to animals, and bestiality goes against these fundamental precipts of morality which were given to us by evolution.

Of course, from the standpoint, one could argue that homosexuality is wrong, but this is not the case. Homosexuality must have some hitherto not understood purpose because the number of homosexuals in a species remains at a constant 8%, we do not quite know why this is yet.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Aww, poor kid don't have a clue. You ever seen a horse screwing a dolphin? Of course not. Grow up.

First, I see no evidence for the claim that there is a fixed percentage of homosexuality occuring among human beings.
Second, even if this is the case, I could just as easily argue that a fixed rate of beastiality occurs among human beings. Does this make it OK?
Third, no it does not. It still in both cases violates the natural laws that govern sexual relations and violates the purpose of sexual action.

First, I see no evidence for the claim that there is a fixed percentage of homosexuality occuring among human beings. Second, even if this is the case, I could just as easily argue that a fixed rate of beastiality occurs among human beings. Does this make it OK? Third, no it does not. It still in both cases violates the natural laws that govern sexual relations and violates the purpose of sexual action. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Then again, in your world, people capable of childbearing but choose not to for whatever reason are also in violation of what you call "natural law" (You've still not given a definition of that or how it is a higher law than human law, btw.)

Should we remove these people from society also?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I never claimed we ought to remove them from society. That is placing words in my mouth. I claimed that homosexuality is immoral. That is not the same as saying we ought to remove homosexuals from society.
No absolute moral obligation exists to create children. The moral obligation exists only insofar as you use the sexual act for what it is intended to do: produce children in a loving family. Any other use of it is contrary to its intent and hence immoral.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Are you saying that nobody has a choice to have sex or not? It is all perfectly and totally involuntary for a woman to have sexual relations with a man, as well as a man with another man? Better tell that to the policemen before they arrest someone for "rape."

Are you saying that nobody has a choice to have sex or not? It is all perfectly and totally involuntary for a woman to have sexual relations with a man, as well as a man with another man? Better tell that to the policemen before they arrest someone for "rape." Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Our postion on biological issues is simple and doesnt require fictional sky daddies. Whatever causes something we dont make up fictional charactures in order to figure out why.

Just because something happens doesnt mean we support it. Tornados affect us but that doesnt make them a product of Superman, Zues or Allah. We dont know everything about tornados but because we study them we have developed warning systems to allert people about the dangers.

Whatever causes someone to think about sex with an animal is not a result of "sin" or superstition. It is a result of a natural phycology or wiring issue in that person's brain.

"Natural" to the believer is a utopian bullcrap made up fictional world where delusional people think that only good things happen in the world.

"Natural" to someone objective allows them to face reality, study reality and seek ways to cope with and prevent the things we dont want affecting us.

Keep your delusional fantacy that a sky daddy gave us "free will". Keep your delusion that we cant find answers for beastiality or pediophilia or any other biological occurance. People who study these problems find answers to them. People who pray for these problems to go away have their heads in the sand.

EITHER WAY, I will not let you paint atheists as sick or immoral just because you baught some ancient myth.

So, prove that your god exists but dont expect anyone here to have any sympathy for a person that sells a stereotype.

Blah blah blah, you need God to be moral....blah blah blah.....

Yet isnt it amazing that billions of people outside your myth dont screw animals or rape kids. If your God was required so that we didnt screw a monkey then it would stand to reason the Japanese should be in their hot springs fucking snow monkeys because they dont believe in your Jesus. Care to explain to me why they dont do that even though they dont believe in Jesus?

I dont need your God. You cant stand that. It bugs you so much that people dont need your myth to be moral. It bugs you that we can find answers to bad behaivor without making up words like "god" or "sin" to answer things.

I dont need your god. You lose. Get over it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

And you say that atheist say that animals and humans are the same? This relation of identity is not as strict as 1=1, there are enough criteria upon which you can differentiate between human beings and other animals.

But who told you this anyhow?

This sure sounds like you are making a moral claim; however, most atheists that I know are relativists. If you are making a moral claim, where do you get this from?

I never claimed we ought to remove them from society. That is placing words in my mouth. I claimed that homosexuality is immoral. That is not the same as saying we ought to remove homosexuals from society. No absolute moral obligation exists to create children. The moral obligation exists only insofar as you use the sexual act for what it is intended to do: produce children in a loving family. Any other use of it is contrary to its intent and hence immoral. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

My error.

I was under the impression that you wanted to punish people for violating this "natural law".

Your God is on record as enjoying that sort of thing - I thought you were following his precepts.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

And you say that atheist say that animals and humans are the same? This relation of identity is not as strict as 1=1, there are enough criteria upon which you can differentiate between human beings and other animals.

But who told you this anyhow?

This sure sounds like you are making a moral claim; however, most atheists that I know are relativists. If you are making a moral claim, where do you get this from?

My moral claims come from my reason. I determine if an action would cause unnecessary harm to another organism. If it does, I consider it wrong to do.

I don't need a God or one of the varied, conflicting interpretations of a book men wrote and claimed is his to tell me so.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Whatever causes someone to think about sex with an animal is not a result of "sin" or superstition. It is a result of a natural phycology or wiring issue in that person's brain.

When did I claim that beastiality was the result of sin? I would argue that it is the result of original sin, but this is the same effect - it distorts our nature, leading to the same problems with "wiring" that you speak of.

Quote:

"Natural" to the believer is a utopian bullcrap made up fictional world where delusional people think that only good things happen in the world.

"Natural" to someone objective allows them to face reality, study reality and seek ways to cope with and prevent the things we dont want affecting us.

Keep your delusional fantacy that a sky daddy gave us "free will". Keep your delusion that we cant find answers for beastiality or pediophilia or any other biological occurance. People who study these problems find answers to them. People who pray for these problems to go away have their heads in the sand.

I don't know where you are getting these points. I never claimed that we can just make these problems go away by praying about them. My faith and my reason both tell me that homosexuality and beastiality are contrary to nature and immoral for that reason; they go against what it is to be a human being. If you want to maintain, however, that these are non-culpable actions, you destroy the foundation for any morality. People just act according to their biology and you can't assign any right or wrong value to it. It would then be preposterous to claim, for example, that beastiality was wrong because every act following from a person inclined to beastiality would not be their fault, but only the inevitable result of their biological processes.
Free will is necessary to postulate any moral system, otherwise there can be no "ought" to human affairs.

Quote:

EITHER WAY, I will not let you paint atheists as sick or immoral just because you baught some ancient myth.

It has nothing to do with myths. Just from the fact that, if you reject free will, you cannot maintain a moral system. If everything is just a matter of neurons firing, no moral value can be assigned, as everyone just does what their biology does and no action is either bad or good. In this case, this is the pinnacle of immorality, because you deny the possibility for any moral action. Explain, then, how you can have a moral outlook.

Quote:

So, prove that your god exists but dont expect anyone here to have any sympathy for a person that sells a stereotype.

Blah blah blah, you need God to be moral....blah blah blah.....

Nature and reality need to exist for one to have morality. If this is true, nature and reality are not necessary beings, but possible beings dependent on other causes. Then, we must eventually posit one necessary being, which we call God, which provides being to all other things. So, in a way, God is necessary to posit any moral system at all that is in any way objective.
But that is not to say that God's grace is necessary in each act of human beings to assure that they are moral actions. Human beings have the clear capacity to do good and to avoid evil. Further, God designed them to share in His eternal law; this is natural law. Human beings naturally have a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, which is why the Japanese are not all committing immoral actions constantly.

Nature and reality need to exist for one to have morality. If this is true, nature and reality are not necessary beings, but possible beings dependent on other causes. Then, we must eventually posit one necessary being, which we call God, which provides being to all other things. So, in a way, God is necessary to posit any moral system at all that is in any way objective.

Why is god necessary apart from you wish that it is? Social norms are created through human interaction, no divine intervention is necessary. Humans share many behaviors with primates that can be construed as moral behavior but gorillas and chimps don't have a god that writes fables.

What system of governance existed whereupon your gods made these laws. There was no consent from the governed, no matter for arbitration or airing of greviences, no election of officials. Your gods have no more authority than a rambling drunk on a urine stained sidewalk.

Your gods, as expressed through the mortal authors of the bible, advocate a system of slavery, endorse and encourage genocide, abhor democracy, free speech and freedom of religion. Our nation created a nation that not only rejects your morals but gives the ability of people to alter them. Where were your gods in developing these system of laws? They weren't there, therefore they weren't necessary and your argument is flawed. It's not only flawed but patently absurd.

Why is god necessary apart from you wish that it is? Social norms are created through human interaction, no divine intervention is necessary. Humans share many behaviors with primates that can be construed as moral behavior but gorillas and chimps don't have a god that writes fables.

Which is exactly the point I was making at the beginning of this post. Morality cannot exist if you are a pure materialist and beastiality must be considered completely and utterly a correct alternative lifestyle without any moral connotation.

Quote:

What system of governance existed whereupon your gods made these laws. There was no consent from the governed, no matter for arbitration or airing of greviences, no election of officials. Your gods have no more authority than a rambling drunk on a urine stained sidewalk.

I see no reason why we ought to posit that all moral laws are merely a matter of mutual agreement. If this is the case, they do not exist at all. Only if some objective law or reason exists can there be any possibility for any laws at all. If there was not, all human laws and ordinances would be meaningless and arbitrary.
Further, these moral laws flow from God's nature, not from some arbitrary decree. He is Himself Goodness. Our own nature as human beings has a certain natural law which governs it because we attain our end as rational animals by acting in accord with our reason. This is the source of morality, ultimately founded in God as the source of this ontology. God is the source of human nature, and then the source of the objective foundation in which we place moral truth. If no objective and ontological foundation exists for morality, no real moral truth exists at all, in which case beastiality IS acceptable.

Further, these moral laws flow from God's nature, not from some arbitrary decree. He is Himself Goodness. Our own nature as human beings has a certain natural law which governs it because we attain our end as rational animals by acting in accord with our reason. This is the source of morality, ultimately founded in God as the source of this ontology. God is the source of human nature, and then the source of the objective foundation in which we place moral truth. If no objective and ontological foundation exists for morality, no real moral truth exists at all, in which case beastiality IS acceptable. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

You claim that but can you support it? You have a habit of constantly repeating yourself without actually providing anything of substance. By what matter of authority did your gods decree what is moral and what is immoral? How is it any different than stating my opinion? You claim slavery and genocide are morally good acts while I contend that the majority in society would condemn it as immoral. In the subject of beastiality your gods created a world where the fictional prototype Adam would have a multitude of animals as sex partners but later condemns that as immoral once there are more humans around. It all seems rather arbitrary.

I am sure you will have something to present other than more baseless assertions but somehow I think I am just fooling myself in thinking that.

I can support it. I just want to lay out my position first. I never claimed that God Himself arbitrarily issues a decree and that is how morality is created. Morality is a derivitive of nature, which finds its ultimate source in God. I have already shown how nature is the basis of morality. God's statements in Sacred Scripture which condemn immoral behaviour is merely an explication of this already existing law of nature.

The discussion of whether God is the source of nature is a different discussion. I support this, for example, on my blog. I quote one argument for God's existence as source of all being:
"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

It seems todangst is having me banned because he disagrees with me, and calls everything I say a "lie." As such, I cannot continue this post and post it as is. I'll be praying for all of you and wish you the best.

This sure sounds like you are making a moral claim; however, most atheists that I know are relativists. If you are making a moral claim, where do you get this from?

Theists are relativists in practice. They only delude themselves into thinking they possess a singular, true moral absolute. Then when they find themselves unable to agree on what that absolute is, they go into relativist mode and kill each other for disagreeing with their absolutes. Those 9/11 hijackers held the moral absolute that it is acceptable to kill non-believers. Most Christians in the West do not hold that absolute. Who is right? We're down to relativism anyway. Don't fault us materialists/atheists for faults that are clearly present in your own paradigm.

I can support it. I just want to lay out my position first. I never claimed that God Himself arbitrarily issues a decree and that is how morality is created. Morality is a derivitive of nature, which finds its ultimate source in God. I have already shown how nature is the basis of morality. God's statements in Sacred Scripture which condemn immoral behaviour is merely an explication of this already existing law of nature.

Then morality existed before your gods and your gods were simply ordering people around with no authority whatsoever. Granted your fictional gods can say what is moral and immoral all they want but that doesn't grant them any reason to conclude they are correct. Your bible advocates rape, murder, slavery, genocide, racism, censorship, sexism and a whole host of societal evils that are roundly condemned in rational society. In reality your god is just an expression of what you want and since you say such things are moral then you are one sick individual who needs to be locked up for the safety of society.

The best I describe morality is getting along socially.As humans we value a good social environment.To have this environment we must behave morally.i.e. consider others and avoid harm

Quote:

So, why again can't someone have sex with animals if there is not a reason to consider an animal able to either consent or not to consent?

If it was clear that the animal was consenting then I wouldn't consider it morally wrong... just extremely poor taste!

Quote:

Why is consent merely the deciding factor? Is it OK to commit adultery with the boss's wife if she consents? Is it OK to have sex with a child if they "consent?"

Nobody said consent was the only thing that can make sex immoral.

Quote:

What determines consent in a human being when consent is merely an illusion of evolution? Why ought consent to mean anything at all if it is merely illusory?

An illusion? What are you on about?It's a well defined social concept.

Quote:

Obviously, I don't see how an atheist can find this obvious. To quote a famous atheist who founded PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." I see no reason why an atheist ought to consider them any different from one another.

Other than the obvious biological differences?The main way we distinguish ourselves from animals is on social relations. It's why animals that can't communicate aren't treated the same as those who can. It's why insects with limited pain expression aren't treated with the same respect as mammals. It's why we give no thought to 'feelings' of plants.Bear in mind that I'm not citing this as the only reason.After all, we treat humans with seemingly sub-animal minds with respect. It's more complex than just social relations but I think that's the main part.

Quote:

OK, two totally contradictory statements. Either consent really means something or it is merely a product of evolution, chemical processes, and is actually and utterly meaningless. No middle ground.

It's a SOCIAL CONCEPT.And what's this merely a product of evolution?The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts you know...You seem to be caught up on the old:"If we are physical then we are only atoms after all, and what worth are atoms?"

Surely you understand SOMETHING about value?A cake and a piece of faeces are both 'merely' atoms.Would you value them the same?What you call a soul, a persons personality/being/etc is what's valuable. This value is irrelevent to their physical make up.

I never claimed we ought to remove them from society. That is placing words in my mouth. I claimed that homosexuality is immoral. That is not the same as saying we ought to remove homosexuals from society.
No absolute moral obligation exists to create children. The moral obligation exists only insofar as you use the sexual act for what it is intended to do: produce children in a loving family. Any other use of it is contrary to its intent and hence immoral.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Every species on the planet that engages in intercourse proves you wrong. There's nothing moral or immoral about homosexuality, and it is in fact a perfectly natural occurance in most if not all animals that use intercourse for sexual reproduction. It is genetic. So your views are 100% invalid. If your god exists, he literally made some people gay. Whether you like it or not.

In my opinion, bestiality - a sexual interspecies relation - is not inherently wrong but presents a personal choice that must be well informed and prudently practiced by people who are knowledgeable about it and suitable animals that have been specifically taught for this purpose.

I take from many negative answers people provide on the bestiality issue that they are misinformed and prejudiced and base their rejection on little else than their private dislike. I call it the “Yuk factor” and it’s perfectly fine, but since it is very personal, it should not lead to a blanket condemnation of those who think and feel otherwise. After all, its 2008, so, let's keep an open liberal mind and refrain from hasty judgements and assigning blame.

I can speak about bestiality only in terms of females having sex with dogs; any other variant does not interest me. If and only if an appropriate dog is expressly trained for sex with a hominid and the female has properly learned how to make safe and sane sex with him so both can have a maximum of carnal pleasure, I have no objections to the practice because no harm will be done. After all, sexual relations between a female and a dog should only happen between loving owner and loving pet. Any other form of such sexual encounter - forced or not and involving untrained participants – is wrong because it is not safe and likely to be abusive for the beings involved. Sometimes we learn horror stories related to the practice of bestiality and involving the sexual abuse of a woman or an animal – this is exemplary for cases where the participants, females and dogs alike, were not properly prepared, exploited and abused.As I said, this is wrong and must not happen.

Apart from that, what is it for a woman to have a little carnal fun with her pet dog? It means to have a readily available live dildo to satisfy sexual cravings with no strings attached, without emotional complications, discreet, clean, and safe. And, if correctly executed, also the dog will have his sexual fulfillment as a canine and both are bound to develop a deeper and richer relationship that extends to the physical level. So, I ask, why not if some mutual and harmless fun can be had? Hence, in terms of females having sex with their pet dogs, I give it green light.

To those who object to bestiality on religious grounds, I can only respond to leave blind fanatical faith, superstition, and "God's Word" out of the picture - He has certainly more important things to tend to (and I suspect that, with his understanding and empathetic heart, also Jesus would let it pass). In terms of bestiality’s legality in the occident, I see, as far as I am informed, no sound and unquestionable reasoning for the prohibition.Particularly in remote rural areas, bestiality was frequent in ancient times but, upon the dawn of Christianity, got banned and persecuted as unnatural and against God’s will by the church (needless to sat that the church has little to do with God’s word).

At the core of the secular legal issue is, I believe, an anthropological concern with the adequate mating and coupling patterns that are vital and desirable for a given society’s structural dynamics.

And concerning the alleged possibility of a female giving birth to a 'monster' as a consequence of coupling with a dog - this is simply a biological impossibility!

For those who approve of bestiality, rejoice because the numbers of those endorsing it is rising. To me, this is a good sign because it helps to obliterate the anyway arbitrary and self-serving division between us, the hominid animals, and other animals. In terms of species boundaries, I see the only difference between the hominid and other animals in that the former has a greater degree of cognitive complexity manifest on the emotional and material planes. This is certainly no reason for self-aggrandizement, and whether or not it is truly a blessing is disputable.

Some people say that because an animal cannot consent, bestiality is wrong.This is only half the truth.Fact is that an animal cannot consent in human terms but this is also not necessary because you will indubitably get to know whether or not your dog, or another animal for that matter, consents to having sex with you.Only a person who persists in spite of an animal’s unwillingness is guilty of rape.

I conclude therefore: bestiality is not wrong if responsibly practiced and the beings involved are actually compatible.It is wrong when the participants are not properly trained or forced to engage in it.

Interested in learning more? Check out, for example, the excellent and commendable website of Zooskool, which is dedicated to responsibly educating females in the erotic art of having sex with their pet dog.

Now, enjoy whatever carnal pleasure you endorse and if you c

In my opinion, bestiality - a sexual interspecies relation - is not inherently wrong but presents a personal choice that must be well informed and prudently practiced by people who are knowledgeable about it and suitable animals that have been specifically taught for this purpose.

I take from many negative answers people provide on the bestiality issue that they are misinformed and prejudiced and base their rejection on little else than their private dislike. I call it the "Yuk factor" and it's perfectly fine, but since it is very personal, it should not lead to a blanket condemnation of those who think and feel otherwise. After all, its 2008, so, let's keep an open liberal mind and refrain from hasty judgements and assigning blame.

I can speak about bestiality only in terms of females having sex with dogs; any other variant does not interest me. If and only if an appropriate dog is expressly trained for sex with a hominid and the female has properly learned how to make safe and sane sex with him so both can have a maximum of carnal pleasure, I have no objections to the practice because no harm will be done. After all, sexual relations between a female and a dog should only happen between loving owner and loving pet. Any other form of such sexual encounter - forced or not and involving untrained participants - is wrong because it is not safe and likely to be abusive for the beings involved. Sometimes we learn horror stories related to the practice of bestiality and involving the sexual abuse of a woman or an animal - this is exemplary for cases where the participants, females and dogs alike, were not properly prepared, exploited and abused. As I said, this is wrong and must not happen.

Apart from that, what is it for a woman to have a little carnal fun with her pet dog? It means to have a readily available live dildo to satisfy sexual cravings with no strings attached, without emotional complications, discreet, clean, and safe. And, if correctly executed, also the dog will have his sexual fulfillment as a canine and both are bound to develop a deeper and richer relationship that extends to the physical level. So, I ask, why not if some mutual and harmless fun can be had? Hence, in terms of females having sex with their pet dogs, I give it green light.

To those who object to bestiality on religious grounds, I can only respond to leave blind fanatical faith, superstition, and "God's Word" out of the picture - He has certainly more important things to tend to (and I suspect that, with his understanding and empathetic heart, also Jesus would let it pass). In terms of bestiality's legality in the occident, I see, as far as I am informed, no sound and unquestionable reasoning for the prohibition. Particularly in remote rural areas, bestiality was frequent in ancient times but, upon the dawn of Christianity, got banned and persecuted as unnatural and against God's will by the church (needless to sat that the church has little to do with God's word).

At the core of the secular legal issue is, I believe, an anthropological concern with the adequate mating and coupling patterns that are vital and desirable for a given society's structural dynamics.

And concerning the alleged possibility of a female giving birth to a 'monster' as a consequence of coupling with a dog - this is simply a biological impossibility!

For those who approve of bestiality, rejoice because the numbers of those endorsing it is rising. To me, this is a good sign because it helps to obliterate the anyway arbitrary and self-serving division between us, the hominid animals, and other animals. In terms of species boundaries, I see the only difference between the hominid and other animals in that the former has a greater degree of cognitive complexity manifest on the emotional and material planes. This is certainly no reason for self-aggrandizement, and whether or not it is truly a blessing is disputable.

Some people say that because an animal cannot consent, bestiality is wrong. This is only half the truth. Fact is that an animal cannot consent in human terms but this is also not necessary because you will indubitably get to know whether or not your dog, or another animal for that matter, consents to having sex with you. Only a person who persists in spite of an animal's unwillingness is guilty of rape.

I conclude therefore: bestiality is not wrong if responsibly practiced and the beings involved are actually compatible. It is wrong when the participants are not properly trained or forced to engage in it.

Interested in learning more? Check out, for example, the excellent and commendable website of Zooskool, which is dedicated to responsibly educating females in the erotic art of having sex with their pet dog.

Now, enjoy whatever carnal pleasure you endorse and if you consider sex with your pet dog, don't forget: if you don't know how and the dog is not suitable nor accurately trained and sexually docile, DON'T DO IT because it is potentially dangerous for you and him!

In my opinion, bestiality - a sexual interspecies relation - is not inherently wrong but presents a personal choice that must be well informed and prudently practiced by people who are knowledgeable about it and suitable animals that have been specifically taught for this purpose.

I take from many negative answers people provide on the bestiality issue that they are misinformed and prejudiced and base their rejection on little else than their private dislike. I call it the “Yuk factor” and it’s perfectly fine, but since it is very personal, it should not lead to a blanket condemnation of those who think and feel otherwise. After all, its 2008, so, let's keep an open liberal mind and refrain from hasty judgements and assigning blame.

I can speak about bestiality only in terms of females having sex with dogs; any other variant does not interest me. If and only if an appropriate dog is expressly trained for sex with a hominid and the female has properly learned how to make safe and sane sex with him so both can have a maximum of carnal pleasure, I have no objections to the practice because no harm will be done. After all, sexual relations between a female and a dog should only happen between loving owner and loving pet. Any other form of such sexual encounter - forced or not and involving untrained participants – is wrong because it is not safe and likely to be abusive for the beings involved. Sometimes we learn horror stories related to the practice of bestiality and involving the sexual abuse of a woman or an animal – this is exemplary for cases where the participants, females and dogs alike, were not properly prepared, exploited and abused.As I said, this is wrong and must not happen.

Apart from that, what is it for a woman to have a little carnal fun with her pet dog? It means to have a readily available live dildo to satisfy sexual cravings with no strings attached, without emotional complications, discreet, clean, and safe. And, if correctly executed, also the dog will have his sexual fulfillment as a canine and both are bound to develop a deeper and richer relationship that extends to the physical level. So, I ask, why not if some mutual and harmless fun can be had? Hence, in terms of females having sex with their pet dogs, I give it green light.

To those who object to bestiality on religious grounds, I can only respond to leave blind fanatical faith, superstition, and "God's Word" out of the picture - He has certainly more important things to tend to (and I suspect that, with his understanding and empathetic heart, also Jesus would let it pass). In terms of bestiality’s legality in the occident, I see, as far as I am informed, no sound and unquestionable reasoning for the prohibition.Particularly in remote rural areas, bestiality was frequent in ancient times but, upon the dawn of Christianity, got banned and persecuted as unnatural and against God’s will by the church (needless to sat that the church has little to do with God’s word).

At the core of the secular legal issue is, I believe, an anthropological concern with the adequate mating and coupling patterns that are vital and desirable for a given society’s structural dynamics.

And concerning the alleged possibility of a female giving birth to a 'monster' as a consequence of coupling with a dog - this is simply a biological impossibility!

For those who approve of bestiality, rejoice because the numbers of those endorsing it is rising. To me, this is a good sign because it helps to obliterate the anyway arbitrary and self-serving division between us, the hominid animals, and other animals. In terms of species boundaries, I see the only difference between the hominid and other animals in that the former has a greater degree of cognitive complexity manifest on the emotional and material planes. This is certainly no reason for self-aggrandizement, and whether or not it is truly a blessing is disputable.

Some people say that because an animal cannot consent, bestiality is wrong.This is only half the truth.Fact is that an animal cannot consent in human terms but this is also not necessary because you will indubitably get to know whether or not your dog, or another animal for that matter, consents to having sex with you.Only a person who persists in spite of an animal’s unwillingness is guilty of rape.

I conclude therefore: bestiality is not wrong if responsibly practiced and the beings involved are actually compatible.It is wrong when the participants are not properly trained or forced to engage in it.

Interested in learning more? Check out, for example, the excellent and commendable website of Zooskool, which is dedicated to responsibly educating females in the erotic art of having sex with their pet dog.

Now, enjoy whatever carnal pleasure you endorse and if you c

In my opinion, bestiality - a sexual interspecies relation - is not inherently wrong but presents a personal choice that must be well informed and prudently practiced by people who are knowledgeable about it and suitable animals that have been specifically taught for this purpose.

I take from many negative answers people provide on the bestiality issue that they are misinformed and prejudiced and base their rejection on little else than their private dislike. I call it the "Yuk factor" and it's perfectly fine, but since it is very personal, it should not lead to a blanket condemnation of those who think and feel otherwise. After all, its 2008, so, let's keep an open liberal mind and refrain from hasty judgements and assigning blame.

I can speak about bestiality only in terms of females having sex with dogs; any other variant does not interest me. If and only if an appropriate dog is expressly trained for sex with a hominid and the female has properly learned how to make safe and sane sex with him so both can have a maximum of carnal pleasure, I have no objections to the practice because no harm will be done. After all, sexual relations between a female and a dog should only happen between loving owner and loving pet. Any other form of such sexual encounter - forced or not and involving untrained participants - is wrong because it is not safe and likely to be abusive for the beings involved. Sometimes we learn horror stories related to the practice of bestiality and involving the sexual abuse of a woman or an animal - this is exemplary for cases where the participants, females and dogs alike, were not properly prepared, exploited and abused. As I said, this is wrong and must not happen.

Apart from that, what is it for a woman to have a little carnal fun with her pet dog? It means to have a readily available live dildo to satisfy sexual cravings with no strings attached, without emotional complications, discreet, clean, and safe. And, if correctly executed, also the dog will have his sexual fulfillment as a canine and both are bound to develop a deeper and richer relationship that extends to the physical level. So, I ask, why not if some mutual and harmless fun can be had? Hence, in terms of females having sex with their pet dogs, I give it green light.

To those who object to bestiality on religious grounds, I can only respond to leave blind fanatical faith, superstition, and "God's Word" out of the picture - He has certainly more important things to tend to (and I suspect that, with his understanding and empathetic heart, also Jesus would let it pass). In terms of bestiality's legality in the occident, I see, as far as I am informed, no sound and unquestionable reasoning for the prohibition. Particularly in remote rural areas, bestiality was frequent in ancient times but, upon the dawn of Christianity, got banned and persecuted as unnatural and against God's will by the church (needless to sat that the church has little to do with God's word).

At the core of the secular legal issue is, I believe, an anthropological concern with the adequate mating and coupling patterns that are vital and desirable for a given society's structural dynamics.

And concerning the alleged possibility of a female giving birth to a 'monster' as a consequence of coupling with a dog - this is simply a biological impossibility!

For those who approve of bestiality, rejoice because the numbers of those endorsing it is rising. To me, this is a good sign because it helps to obliterate the anyway arbitrary and self-serving division between us, the hominid animals, and other animals. In terms of species boundaries, I see the only difference between the hominid and other animals in that the former has a greater degree of cognitive complexity manifest on the emotional and material planes. This is certainly no reason for self-aggrandizement, and whether or not it is truly a blessing is disputable.

Some people say that because an animal cannot consent, bestiality is wrong. This is only half the truth. Fact is that an animal cannot consent in human terms but this is also not necessary because you will indubitably get to know whether or not your dog, or another animal for that matter, consents to having sex with you. Only a person who persists in spite of an animal's unwillingness is guilty of rape.

I conclude therefore: bestiality is not wrong if responsibly practiced and the beings involved are actually compatible. It is wrong when the participants are not properly trained or forced to engage in it.

Interested in learning more? Check out, for example, the excellent and commendable website of Zooskool, which is dedicated to responsibly educating females in the erotic art of having sex with their pet dog.

Now, enjoy whatever carnal pleasure you endorse and if you consider sex with your pet dog, don't forget: if you don't know how and the dog is not suitable nor accurately trained and sexually docile, DON'T DO IT because it is potentially dangerous for you and him!

It's only January 1, and yet I predict that this will be the most bizarre post of 2008.

Wow. This is just more evidence to me that theists or xtians or whatever you consider yourselves are a bunch of sick pups.

I consider animals as other living creatures capable of feeling pain and fear just like humans. I even believe some are capable of reason to a small degree. I would not consider sex with an animal to be anywhere within the realm of normalcy for human behavior.

As far as morals are concerned they don't come from god or zeus or any other fictional character.. Anyone with half a brain who hasn't been indoctrinated by the stupidity of religion knows that is bullshit.

I was a cop in SoCal for a long time and I came across more than a few cases of bestiality (no cracks about la-la land), and guess what? Not a single one of the suspects was an atheist. They were, however, god-fearing, bible thumping theists. Could that be why all you theists came up with this thread?

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jeffersonwww.myspace.com/kenhill5150

It's always the theist that seems to come up w/ the most twisted, deviant topics.

If it's twisted sexual topics you're pre-occupied with, just type "Pastor/Priest" and "sex scandal" into Google News and it doesn't matter what month or week of the year, you'll get back plenty of the twisted sex variety.

This was my favorite though:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Is it OK to have sex with a child w/ their consent?

I wonder how many millions of St(Somebody's) have asked this question w/ a hopeful gleam in their eye.

Well let's see, StMichael, if we go by that amusing, barbaric set of books you call the Bible, I'd have to say yes, it's OK... since there is NOT ONE single admonishment not to engage in Pedophilia within it's pages. (The fact that much of the aformentioned book may have been written, re-written, edited by pedophile priests is purely coincidental).

How lucky for children that many of us derive our morals from a more intelligent and civilized source !

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

what are you retarded or something? rape easier? no, unless mass quantities of alcohol or date rape drugs are used, no, not even close, there's the fighting back, the scratching, the hitting, hell the possiblity that you might get killed in the process, consent is far easier (unless you don't have an ounce of charm and all the women, or guys depending what your into, find you completely offensive), and far more pleasurable, plus, there is always angry hardcore sex if your into that, and there are women that like that type sex, and in the age of the internet you can find those women. Now in the animal kingdom, nope rape isn't always the best, nor possible, there are some species (some austrilian mouse if I recall correctly) that have sex by force (also this mouse dies at the end as all it does during it's mating period is try to fuck any other mouse and as many times possible going without food, water or rest)

After reading some of the posts in this very unexpected thread I have just one thing to say: This thread is totally fucked up.

Now that I have that off my chest, I'm not entirely sure anyone should be engaged in serious debate on this thread, judging by the quality of posts from the theists arguing here, if it can be called arguing. Isn't this all just a joke? Should this really be in Theist vs. Atheist?

I agree with some sentiment I read on the previous page: This thread contains the first (and perhaps) most fucked up post of 2008.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Let me take this carnard to bed -- PUT! I mean put it to bed.

"If humans are animals..." is a composition fallacy. There are differences between different things called "animal." And what's the alternative? Humanity is divine? So if we're not blinked into existence by Yahweh, we should fuck monkeys. Only religion...

The OP got his example wrong: donkeys are bred with horses to make mules, which are usually sterile. I don't know whether a human and another primate would be close enough genetically for a viable breeding pair -- it's not even known whether earlier types of homo sapiens were compatible -- but I can honestly say the thought has not crossed my mind. Again, only religion...

Have you ever seen ducks copulate ? Once in the water the drake practically drowns the hen when he grasps her neck and startsgetting down !!!

It's funny, the cute little ducks that waddle around so innocently have the sexual manners of a pair of breeding lions.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

It's not wrong, if it doesn't hurt the animal. It definitely is wrong, if it does. Asking if it's socially acceptable would be a better way to approach it. My answer would be no.

What makes it wrong if it hurts the animal? Agriculture depends on systematically killing tons of miserable animals. I think your distinction is special pleading, as though one moral construct is absolute (harm is wrong) and another subjective (molesting animals is unseemly); even where we have established precedent of society contradicting the construct -- specifically that 'harm' is the sole factor, or even the main one. They're both social constructs.

That’s not a question you can ask to a atheist if you understand the concept of atheism !

Atheist are a people of different views united only in one idea “there is no god” !

Atheist oppose theist who are all people believing in a god/gods if you ask them is it amoral to eat pork ? Depending on the theist you ask you get a different answer ( Muslim say YES Christian say NO ) .

Depending on persons you ask you get different answers.

StMichael wrote:

to beastiality, any more than they can seriously object to homosexuality or masturbation.

Bullshit ! It is possible to be a atheist and oppose homosexuality or masturbation on moral grounds ! (The view point that there are no god/gods haze nothing to do with sexuality )

Ok I answer you dilemma for me and I speak only for me you can stick you penis or stick in your vagina wherever you wont if it doesn’t harm other humans go do it ! I have no problems seeing you rape a monkey go If you wont to burn of you face to its your decision go do it !

I have no problem wit this ! You wont to stick you penis in a apple OK no problem in a animal no problem in a corps no problem in a blender again no problem !

I bet you can find a atheist so crazy like me who’s on the other side of the spectrum and wants to ban masturbation and homosexuality com on people I bet some atheist in the 1920 opposed homosexuality. Remember kids atheism is only on thing upon atheists agree the rest is debatable.

O before I forget human male + monkey = humanzee

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee Remember If it comes to sexuality I don’t care !